[Lazarus] Building and running Lazarus natively on various architectures

[Mark Morgan Lloyd]

Henry Vermaak wrote:
> On 08/10/10 12:24, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
>> Henry Vermaak wrote:
>>> On 08/10/10 10:51, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
>>>> This thread is a summary of intermittent experience over the last year
>>>> or so with Lazarus running natively on various platforms. I hope to
>>>> cover ARM, PPC, SPARC and (for completeness) x86 on Linux (Debian v5
>>>> "Lenny"), possibly also some older Windows OSes on x86 (NT, W2K); I'm
>>>> afraid that I don't have an x64 system which I think would cover all
>>>> currently-supported CPUs.
>>>>
>>>> Mattias, noting your
>>>>
>>>>> 0.9.29 with fpc 2.4.0 or higher.
>>>>
>>>> I'll work with sources from svn. This might mean that I'm a day or so
>>>> behind in some cases since some of the older machines will take more
>>>> than a day doing a full build.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ARM (armel) on Debian "Lenny"
>>>> -----------------------------
>>
>>>> EAccessViolation : Access violation
>>>> $00086C50
>>>> $000F6A30
>>>> $00140F5C
>>>> $0011FF78
>>>> $0013648C
>>>> $0013FDA0
>>>> $00140950
>>>> $0011FF78
>>>> $0013648C
>>>> $0013FDA0
>>>> $00140950
>>>> $0011FF78
>>>> $00024370
>>>> $00008304
>>>
>>> Why don't you build your compiler with -O- -gl?
>>
>> I thought I had but I'll check... the version of the compiler I'm
>> running was built with make NOGDB=1 OPT=-gl -vt -dFPC_ARMEL -CfSOFT all
>> which I've generally found to give usable backtraces etc. Is adding -O-
>> a useful precaution?
> 
> Well, I'm not sure which optimisations are debugger safe, so I usually 
> disable them all.  I pass OPT="-dFPC_ARMEL -O- -gl" and that seems to 
> work for the traces.  I don't know if it'll help in your case, though.

OK. I'll apply Jonas's fix and recompile like that. I may be some time.

-- 
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]